Yes - because these monarchs and dictators came straight out of the womb, were never conditioned to be self-interested, and proceeded to oppress people for their own gain... The key word you use is 'inherently' - people change as they grow up, they are brought up to fit into society. Our society favours the self-interested.

(Original post by Mathematising)
Yes - because these monarchs and dictators came straight out of the womb, were never conditioned to be self-interested, and proceeded to oppress people for their own gain... The key word you use is 'inherently' - people change as they grow up, they are brought up to fit into society. Our society favours the self-interested.

Monarchs are born, most dictators are self made. They witnessed the struggles of their fellow man (and in many cases, experienced it themselves) but self-interest won anyway.

So what do you suggest? Imposing communism on a nation anyway, and imprison/kill those who protest?

It has been proven time and time again to be flawed and result in millions of deaths. Communism is worse than fascism.

In any case, communism pre-21st century I can begrudgingly respect (ideology wise). It's when 'put the means of production in the hands of the proletariat' changed to 'let's flood first world countries with immigrants and give civil rights to every marginalised group possible' that I began to despise it.

(Original post by Mathematising)
Communism is the correct way forward for humanity. Few would agree with me, at least not to this extremity, but I can assure you that it is. Please feel free to discuss this - it is very close to my heart.

Why would I want to be taxed at higher rates for working hard at school, just for a bunch of lazy *****.

It's always interesting whenever the topic of communism gets brought up, multiple fallacies are made along with the typical ignorance of what communism actually is, as well as the same old generic anti-communist arguments. Also as usual people are using places like North Korea as examples of communism, really? Communism is a classless, stateless society where workers completely own the means of production. North Korea has classes, a state and the workers don't own the means of production. Some of you need to read Marx and other communist literature before talking nonsense and making false assumptions. Marx would be rolling in his grave at what is happening in North Korea.

(Original post by sleepysnooze)
I'm talking about the observable reality of our social world. individual human beings are selfish - our incentives are selfish and our goals are selfish. you can tell me all you want that we have room for altruism or charity but charity doesn't actually define our behaviour like rational self-interest does. if you have the idea that human beings are self-interested, then that would mean that we would have a market around us (as the outlet of competition amongst equally selfish individuals)...which we do. so...I don't know what you want to see inside the world other than self-interest - if we weren't self-interested, and we had a ystem where we as a community defined the co-ordination of resources, why is it that we co-ordinate resources based on the lines of competition, bilateral contracts, self-interest, etc, as opposed to equality, universal contracts, aid, etc?

(Original post by cbreef)
Because we'll always be selfish/greedy as a species. It's the way we are and I don't think we can change that.

The typical 'human nature' arguement is so over done. Human beings aren't naturally selfish, it only seems that way because we living in capitalist society. Human nature is not some fixed concept. What we define as natural changes constantly due to the changes in our surroundings and throughout history the definition of human nature has changed over time, from culture to culture. Selfishness and greed are not hardwired instincst within human beings, people are greedy and selfish because that is what happens when living in capitalist society, traits such as greed are encouraged and rewarded. You even say it yourself in a later post how "being greedy gives them the most happiness". Yes in a capitalist society, being greedy is rewarded. I could go into much more detail as this generic over used argument has been rebutted so many times.

Furthermore, if capitalism is human nature then where was it for the most of human existence? Modern humans have been around for a long time, and capitalism has not even been around for long. In historical terms for many years, human beings lived communally in communes. Capitalism merely perverts human nature and puts people against each other within a competitive, unequal society focused on individualism where greed and selfishness thrive. A simple observation will show you this.

(Original post by TheIr0nDuke)
It is the political ideology responsible for the worst kinds of poverty, deprivation and famine, not to mention the most deaths.

How many is capitalism responsiple for? And religion? I could go on and on. From the Native American genocide to the millions dead in Iraq. All for the profit interests of the few. Then there is more capitalist imperialism and colonialism which is directly responsible for the deaths of millions.

(Original post by Mathematising)
I want proof that we are innately selfish.

innately selfish? as opposed to...nurtured to be selfish?
if we were *innately* not selfish, why would we ever be *nurtured* to be selfish?
and have you ever interacted with a baby or young child? they are the most selfish members of our species of all...

(Original post by TheIr0nDuke)
Monarchs are born, most dictators are self made. They witnessed the struggles of their fellow man (and in many cases, experienced it themselves) but self-interest won anyway.

So what do you suggest? Imposing communism on a nation anyway, and imprison/kill those who protest?

It has been proven time and time again to be flawed and result in millions of deaths. Communism is worse than fascism.

In any case, communism pre-21st century I can begrudgingly respect (ideology wise). It's when 'put the means of production in the hands of the proletariat' changed to 'let's flood first world countries with immigrants and give civil rights to every marginalised group possible' that I began to despise it.

(Original post by sleepysnooze)
innately selfish? as opposed to...nurtured to be selfish?
if we were *innately* not selfish, why would we ever be *nurtured* to be selfish?
and have you ever interacted with a baby or young child? they are the most selfish members of our species of all...

We are nurtured to be selfish because the selfish succeed in capitalist society; it's a self-perpetuating cycle. Then people come along and claim that it's human nature because that is what suits them. Young children only have trouble 'sharing' because they are all give unequal quantity and quality of possessions from such an early age.

(Original post by Artyom17)
The typical 'human nature' arguement is so over done. Human beings aren't naturally selfish, it only seems that way because we living in capitalist society. Human nature is not some fixed concept. What we define as natural changes constantly due to the changes in our surroundings and throughout history the definition of human nature has changed over time, from culture to culture. Selfishness and greed are not hardwired instincst within human beings, people are greedy and selfish because that is what happens when living in capitalist society, traits such as greed are encouraged and rewarded. You even say it yourself in a later post how "being greedy gives them the most happiness". Yes in a capitalist society, being greedy is rewarded. I could go into much more detail as this generic over used argument has been rebutted so many times.

*sigh* you talk about human nature as if it's not a "nature" at all but yet another concept of nurture...
think about our human minds. we like pleasure. we are given pleasure through selfish things, like money, food, sexual pleasure, individual status/prestige, individual accomplishment, etc. if there's any altruism prevalent, it's towards family. and family is biological to some degree, because if we weren't altruistic towards our families then perhaps from an evolutionary perspective we might have not survived as well.

and sorry, but if we're not selfish, then why are we hard-wired to at least gain self-happiness, not collective happiness? there's a whole world out there of starving people - why don't we all stop that being the case if we're not naturally selfish? the only thing an individual mind can *really* truly feel is individual happiness. we can't *feel* collective happiness with a collective brain. there is no collective brain. from a biological sense, we can only really be selfish first and altruistic as a pretty distant second. if we were *naturally* even half altruistic, then we'd feel pleasure from spending about half our money on charity, but exactly how many people naturally want to do that? I mean, we are individuals in so many senses in this society, so why can't we be individuals when it comes to money and spending? we already are, but you're seeming to say that capitalism will stop us, culturally, from wanting to be charitable - that seems like an incredibly weak argument - culture, today, doesn't shame people for being charitable. if anything, it rewards people for it. J K Rowling, for instance, is given high praise, as is bill gates, for giving a lot of money to charity, and it's people like trump who are usually shunned for not being like those two.

Furthermore, if capitalism is human nature then where was it for the most of human existence? Modern humans have been around for a long time, and capitalism has not even been around for long. In historical terms for many years, human beings lived communally in communes. Capitalism merely perverts human nature and puts people against each other within a competitive, unequal society focused on individualism where greed and selfishness thrive. A simple observation will show you this.

hmm, maybe a lack of information about the wider world, a lack of easily tradable resources, or the pressure of authoritarian leadership preventing people from doing anything other than existing in a closed kind of system. maybe it could have been the fact that people didn't have enforceable property rights even in communes because that wouldn't have been the purpose of a commune like it might be today with a government. it could have been partly to do with controlling others/enforcing loyalties and partly to do with the fear of being alone in such an age of primitivism. and human beings probably did live communally, for selfish reasons relating to fear and defence. in primitive times, might was right. if you were on your own, you'd have been very weak. it wasn't an age of technology or strong materials at all. so what sense would it have made to live a lone existence? I have a lot of trouble relating to your perspective because you're not giving this question any thought whatsoever.

(Original post by Mathematising)
We are nurtured to be selfish because the selfish succeed in capitalist society; it's a self-perpetuating cycle. Then people come along and claim that it's human nature because that is what suits them. Young children only have trouble 'sharing' because they are all give unequal quantity and quality of possessions from such an early age.

um...so if we're naturally altruistic, why did capitalism start? how could it have started?

(Original post by sleepysnooze)
*sigh* you talk about human nature as if it's not a "nature" at all but yet another concept of nurture...
think about our human minds. we like pleasure. we are given pleasure through selfish things, like money, food, sexual pleasure, individual status/prestige, individual accomplishment, etc. if there's any altruism prevalent, it's towards family. and family is biological to some degree, because if we weren't altruistic towards our families then perhaps from an evolutionary perspective we might have not survived as well.

and sorry, but if we're not selfish, then why are we hard-wired to at least gain self-happiness, not collective happiness? there's a whole world out there of starving people - why don't we all stop that being the case if we're not naturally selfish? the only thing an individual mind can *really* truly feel is individual happiness. we can't *feel* collective happiness with a collective brain. there is no collective brain. from a biological sense, we can only really be selfish first and altruistic as a pretty distant second. if we were *naturally* even half altruistic, then we'd feel pleasure from spending about half our money on charity, but exactly how many people naturally want to do that? I mean, we are individuals in so many senses in this society, so why can't we be individuals when it comes to money and spending? we already are, but you're seeming to say that capitalism will stop us, culturally, from wanting to be charitable - that seems like an incredibly weak argument - culture, today, doesn't shame people for being charitable. if anything, it rewards people for it. J K Rowling, for instance, is given high praise, as is bill gates, for giving a lot of money to charity, and it's people like trump who are usually shunned for not being like those two.

hmm, maybe a lack of information about the wider world, a lack of easily tradable resources, or the pressure of authoritarian leadership preventing people from doing anything other than existing in a closed kind of system. maybe it could have been the fact that people didn't have enforceable property rights even in communes because that wouldn't have been the purpose of a commune like it might be today with a government. it could have been partly to do with controlling others/enforcing loyalties and partly to do with the fear of being alone in such an age of primitivism. and human beings probably did live communally, for selfish reasons relating to fear and defence. in primitive times, might was right. if you were on your own, you'd have been very weak. it wasn't an age of technology or strong materials at all. so what sense would it have made to live a lone existence? I have a lot of trouble relating to your perspective because you're not giving this question any thought whatsoever.

Do you not feel remotely guilty when you see starving children born into poverty without any way out? That guilt itself is a device of nature - the nature of caring for fellow man. That device is the one which should incentivise people to co-operate. The main reason why people don't act on this guilt is because it is, for the most part, out of sight and thus out of mind. If the starving children were on our streets before our eyes I doubt we'd all act so selfishly.

(Original post by sleepysnooze)
um...so if we're naturally altruistic, why did capitalism start? how could it have started?

Because at some point (in monarchical and developing feudal systems) there was an assumption that some humans just are born better than others. It is the concept that high-born children just do have a higher intrinsic value than low-born ones. Nowadays we consider that ridiculous, right? Capitalism doesn't reflect this being ridiculous - even if it isn't written into capitalism as a concept it is certainly the outcome of it running its course.

(Original post by Mathematising)
Do you not feel remotely guilty when you see starving children born into poverty without any way out? That guilt itself is a device of nature - the nature of caring for fellow man. That device is the one which should incentivise people to co-operate. The main reason why people don't act on this guilt is because it is, for the most part, out of sight and thus out of mind. If the starving children were on our streets before our eyes I doubt we'd all act so selfishly.

human beings are caring for others to a small extent, but not nearly enough to be altruistic by nature. we're far more selfish than altruistic, clearly. the fact that we feel any empathy towards others who are suffering doesn't mean that we are unselfish enough to be ruled by our sense of altruism. we're ruled by our sense of selfishness nearly all of the time.

and if we're not naturally selfish and, rather, unselfish, how did capitalism ever begin? how could it have ever begun and why?

(Original post by sleepysnooze)
human beings are caring for others to a small extent, but not nearly enough to be altruistic by nature. we're far more selfish than altruistic, clearly. the fact that we feel any empathy towards others who are suffering doesn't mean that we are unselfish enough to be ruled by our sense of altruism. we're ruled by our sense of selfishness nearly all of the time.

and if we're not naturally selfish and, rather, unselfish, how did capitalism ever begin? how could it have ever begun and why?

(Original post by Mathematising)
Do you not feel remotely guilty when you see starving children born into poverty without any way out? That guilt itself is a device of nature - the nature of caring for fellow man. That device is the one which should incentivise people to co-operate. The main reason why people don't act on this guilt is because it is, for the most part, out of sight and thus out of mind. If the starving children were on our streets before our eyes I doubt we'd all act so selfishly.

So how many "selfless" acts do you perform on a daily basis then? Or are you another left wing hypocrite who doesn't live by what they preach?

Don't act as if you are some profoundly intellectual debater by crying ad hominem. At any rate, it would only constitute ad hominem if I was trying to use it to undermine your argument - which I wasn't so it wasn't a fallacy.

(Original post by sleepysnooze)
is it really so hard to just give me a brief explanation and not look as if you're running away from the argument?

If it's so hard for you to find the post yourself, I'll copy it in here for you:

'Because at some point (in monarchical and developing feudal systems) there was an assumption that some humans just are born better than others. It is the concept that high-born children just do have a higher intrinsic value than low-born ones. Nowadays we consider that ridiculous, right? Capitalism doesn't reflect this being ridiculous - even if it isn't written into capitalism as a concept it is certainly the outcome of it running its course.'